Vedabhai v. Santaram

253 ITR 798Supreme Court of India2002#310 most cited

What is Vedabhai v. Santaram authority for?

The expression 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in legal proceedings must receive a liberal construction, prioritizing the advancement of substantial justice.

262

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vedabhai v. Santaram · 253 ITR 798 · condonation of delay · sufficient cause · reasonable cause · liberal construction · substantial justice · appeal filing delay · Section 250 · income tax appeals

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80GSection 147Section 12ABSection 144Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

condonation of delayreasonable causesection 80gsection 12opportunity of being heardsection 27section 271section 25interestsection 142(1)prescribedindia

Judgments citing Vedabhai v. Santaram

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1732/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 226(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos 1730 to 1732 Baptist Church Dilsukhnagar आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad "ी "वजय पाल राव, उपा" य" एवं "ी मंजुनाथ जी, लेखा सद" य के सम" । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.1730 to 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) BAPTIST CHURCH Vs. Income Tax Officer DILSUKHNAGAR, (Exemption), Ward-1 HYDERABAD HYDERABAD PAN:AAATB5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar,…

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1731/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 226(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos 1730 to 1732 Baptist Church Dilsukhnagar आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad "ी "वजय पाल राव, उपा" य" एवं "ी मंजुनाथ जी, लेखा सद" य के सम" । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.1730 to 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) BAPTIST CHURCH Vs. Income Tax Officer DILSUKHNAGAR, (Exemption), Ward-1 HYDERABAD HYDERABAD PAN:AAATB5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar,…

BAPTIST CHRUCH DILSUKH NAGAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1730/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1730 To 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) Baptist Church Vs. Income Tax Officer Dilsukhnagar, (Exemption), Ward-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaatb5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-. Theses 3 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 14/11/2024 Arising From The Two Assessment Orders For The A.Y 2012-13 & 2015-16 & One Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The A.Y 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Advocate S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 226(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA Nos 1730 to 1732 Baptist Church Dilsukhnagar आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad "ी "वजय पाल राव, उपा" य" एवं "ी मंजुनाथ जी, लेखा सद" य के सम" । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Manjunatha G. Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.1730 to 1732/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2015-16) BAPTIST CHURCH Vs. Income Tax Officer DILSUKHNAGAR, (Exemption), Ward-1 HYDERABAD HYDERABAD PAN:AAATB5861E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Advocate S. Rama Rao राज" व "ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar,…

M. PRATAPRAY PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 497/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 14A

…123 has further held that the length of delay is not material and what is material is the acceptability of the explanation for the delay. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil & Others (2001) 253 ITR 798 (SC) has reiterated that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach should be adopted while deciding applications for condonation of delay. In the present case, the explanation offered by the assessee appears to be bona fide and there is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or due to negligence on the part of the assessee. Fu…

KISHOR CHANGYA PATIL,MUMBAI vs. ITO41(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7938/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 144Section 147Section 271A

…N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (AIR 1998 SC 3222), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that length of delay is not decisive; rather, the acceptability of the explanation is the guiding criterion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vedabai vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798) reiterated that a pragmatic and justice- oriented approach must guide the courts in matters of delay condonation. 7. In the present case, having considered the explanation offered and the overall circumstances emerging from the record, we are satisfied that the delay does not appear to be intentional or contumacious. There is nothing to indicat…

KISHOR CHANGYA PATIL,MUMBAI vs. ITO41(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7937/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 144Section 147Section 271A

…N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (AIR 1998 SC 3222), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that length of delay is not decisive; rather, the acceptability of the explanation is the guiding criterion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vedabai vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798) reiterated that a pragmatic and justice- oriented approach must guide the courts in matters of delay condonation. 7. In the present case, having considered the explanation offered and the overall circumstances emerging from the record, we are satisfied that the delay does not appear to be intentional or contumacious. There is nothing to indicat…

MESSE FRANKFURT TRADE FAIRS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6680/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

…y circumstance beyond the control of the assessee but is the direct consequence of a considered litigation strategy. 9. In this context, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798) squarely applies. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that while the expression “sufficient cause” deserves liberal construction in cases of short delay, a clear distinction must be drawn where the is warranted. The Court has emphasized that in cases of substantial delay, the explanation must be convincing and satisfactory. In the pres…

MESSE FRANKFURT TRADE FAIRS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6498/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6498/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. Ita No. 6680/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Messe Frankfurt Trade Dcit – 2(2)(1), Fairs India Private Income Tax Limited, Vs. Department, 501, 5Th Floor, Gala Mumbai-400 020 Impecca, Mumbai, Chakala Midc S.O, Mumbai-400 093. Pan/Gir No. Aabcm0696G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 270ASection 80G

…y circumstance beyond the control of the assessee but is the direct consequence of a considered litigation strategy. 9. In this context, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798) squarely applies. The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that while the expression “sufficient cause” deserves liberal construction in cases of short delay, a clear distinction must be drawn where the is warranted. The Court has emphasized that in cases of substantial delay, the explanation must be convincing and satisfactory. In the pres…

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5303/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)Section 37(1)

…ses from a deliberate choice not to pursue a remedy, as is evident in the present case from the assessee’s own affidavit. 9. On the other hand, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798) squarely governs the present situation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that a distinction must be drawn between cases of short delay and cases of inordinate delay, and that where delay is inordinate, the explanation must be convincing and satisfactory. The delay of 2126 days in the present case is grossly inordinate, and the explanat…

M/S B.N. DUTTA,JAMSHEDPUR vs. DCIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.705/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S B. N. Dutta ….…………………………………………………..………….……Appellant Head Office: 518, G Road, Sonari West Layout, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand – 831011. [Pan: Aadfb0648J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Khasnobis, Ca & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri H. Robindro Singh, Addl. Cit - Dr & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2025 & December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 13.02.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Indore [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Civil Construction & Maintenance Of Civil Structures Inside Stell Plants. For The Assessment Year 2011-12, The Assessee Filed Its Return On 30.09.2011 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.36,58,080/- & Total Tax & Cess Liability Of Rs.11,30,347/- Was Discharged In Full Resulting In A Refund Of Rs.12,520/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 27.01.2012. The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Information From The Cpc Either Directly By Way Of Service Of Physical Copy Of The Same Or From The Then Authorised Representative Namely Mr. S. N. Gupta. Due To Non-Receipt Of

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

…tatutes. The behaviour of the assessee could be termed as personified in action and negligence which would not constitute reasonable cause. 4.14 Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vedabai Alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 253 ITR 798, it was held as follows:- "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant…

HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAUPADA, TEEN HAATH NAKA, THANE (W)

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6357/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

…in a rational common sense pragmatic manner." In the present case, the appellant's reliance on professional advice and subsequent rectification efforts demonstrate bona fide intent.  Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (2001) 253 ITR 798 (SC): Delay condoned where caused by bona fide mistake or negligence of counsel, holding that parties should not suffer for faults of advisors.  Improvement Trust v. Ujagar Singh (2010) 6 SCC 786. (SC): Even in the absence of a detailed explanation, delay can be condoned if it serves the ends of justice and no prejudice is caused to the other pa…

GAYATRI SEWA SANSTHAN,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the assessee will get relief of INR 90 Lakhs of the loan taken from M/s

ITA 3978/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Gayatri Sewa Sansthan Vs Dcit 155, G.T.Road, Circle-2(1)(1) Panchwati Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad U.P-201001. Pan-Aaatg1960H Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Shivam Gupta, Adv. & Deepashree Rao, Adv. Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19.11.2025 Date Of 19.11.2025 Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 250

…there is a reasonable cause in filing the appeal delayed as stated above and therefore, the delay be condoned. Reliance is placed on the following judgments in support of his claim:- (i) Vedabai Alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patial 253 ITR 798 (SC); (ii) Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471 (SC); (iii) N Balakrishnan vs M.Krishnamurthy [1998] 7 SCC 123 (SC); and (iv) Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal No.2395 of 2008 (SC). 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that assessee is habitual defaulter and despite of repeated…

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 159/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…or that he had no knowledge of the assessment order earlier. Further, no specific date of his arrival in India or of filing the appeal thereafter was provided. The CIT(Appeals) referred to judicial precedents such as Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC) and CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H), and held that condonation of delay can only be granted when sufficient and bona fide cause is shown, which was absent in the present case. The CIT(A) held that provisions relating to limitation must be applied strictly and that the delay of several years cannot be condoned merely on genera…

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 158/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…or that he had no knowledge of the assessment order earlier. Further, no specific date of his arrival in India or of filing the appeal thereafter was provided. The CIT(Appeals) referred to judicial precedents such as Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil [2002] 253 ITR 798 (SC) and CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra [2002] 257 ITR 773 (P&H), and held that condonation of delay can only be granted when sufficient and bona fide cause is shown, which was absent in the present case. The CIT(A) held that provisions relating to limitation must be applied strictly and that the delay of several years cannot be condoned merely on genera…

THAKORBHAI CHHAGANBHAI MORI,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 405/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat09 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kant

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 5

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 405/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Thakorbhai Chhaganbhai Vs ITO, Ward -1(1) Mori Hari Kunj, Station Road Vata Faliyu, Sardarpura, Baruch. jambusar, Baruch, Gujarat PAN – BPAPM0727E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hemant Suthar, CA Revenue by Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order…

NITESH KEKRE,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 860/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 5

…ated appeals, but liberal approach cannot be equated with a license to the appeals at will-disregarding the time–limits fixed by the statutes. 7.6 Further, hon’ble Apex court in the case of Vedabai Alias Vaijyanatabai Baburao Patil Vs Shante ram Baburao Patil 253 ITR 798, It was held as follows– “In exercising discretion under section 5 of the limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant f…

KETAN PRIYAVADAN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 734/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-2021 Ketan Priyavadan Shah The Ito, Ward-1(2)(3) 6, Vidyanagar Co-Op Hsg. Society Vs. Vejalpur Ashram Road, Usmanpura Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan : Afgps 3703 K (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Assessee By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 270ASection 271ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

…that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, and that generally, when there is no gross negligence or mala fide, delay should be condoned. Similarly, in Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798), it was emphasised that where technical considerations are pitted against substantial justice, the latter should prevail. 6.5 Considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that the delay deserves to be condoned, and the matter restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision…

HUGHES COMTEL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3651/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 40ASection 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3651 /Del./2024, A.Y. 2017-18 HCIL Comtel Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner of 1, Shivji Marg Western Greens Income Tax, Circle -11(1) N.H.-08, Gurgaon Road Vs. New Delhi South West Delhi PAN: AACCH0293H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Tavish Verma, Advocate Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/07/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM The appeal for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2017-18…

MR. ANIL NARPATLAL GANDHI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1921/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

…lied on the following case laws;  State of West Bengal Vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 749),  Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji &Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471- SC,  Vedabai Alia Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798)  N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) (7 SCC 123)  Mahaveer Prasad Jain Vs. CIT (1998) (172 ITR 331 (MP)  Artis Tre Pvt. Ltd. Vs CBDT & Ors. (2014) (369 ITR 691 (BOM) 4. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) in para 5 of his order as recorded about issuance of notice. In one or two occasions, the assessee sought…

MR. ANIL NARPATLAL GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD -19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1920/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

…lied on the following case laws;  State of West Bengal Vs Administrator, Howrah Municipality (AIR 1972 SC 749),  Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji &Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471- SC,  Vedabai Alia Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798)  N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) (7 SCC 123)  Mahaveer Prasad Jain Vs. CIT (1998) (172 ITR 331 (MP)  Artis Tre Pvt. Ltd. Vs CBDT & Ors. (2014) (369 ITR 691 (BOM) 4. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) in para 5 of his order as recorded about issuance of notice. In one or two occasions, the assessee sought…

Showing 1–20 of 262 · Page 1 of 14

...